ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[June 14, 1999]

Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.

I continue to adhere to my view that [i]n cases such as this, in which the governments asserted interest is to keep legal users of a product or service ignorant in order to manipulate their choices in the marketplace, the Central Hudson test should not be applied because such an interest is per se illegitimate and can no more justify regulation of commercial speech than it can justify regulation of noncommercial speech. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,517 U.S. 484, 518 (1996) (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.